Talking Points

DEIS states that taking no action (that is, not basing the F-35A) “would be the environmentally preferable alternative.” (Page 2-29)

DEIS states there is a negative impact to the Burlington area in the following categories: noise, air quality, land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice/protection of children, community facilities and public services, ground traffic and transportation, climate change, cumulative effects, and irreversible commitment of resources

Under both scenarios, noise levels (65 dB DNL or greater) would increase. The following additional areas (based on 2000 census data) would be subject to these noise levels

672 additional acres would be added for a total of 2,635 acres

Residential acreage would increase from 103 to 667 acres

2,863 more people would be affected for a total of 6,675 people –{using 2010 census it would be over 7,700 people}

1,366 more households would be affected for a total of 2,944 households – {using 2010 census it would be over 3,400 households} (Pages ES-10, BR4-61, ES-11)

“The F-35A is a new type of aircraft; historical trends show that mishaps rates of all types decrease the longer an aircraft is operational and as flight crews and maintenance personnel learn more about the aircraft’s capabilities and limitations…” (Page ES-12)

“…there have not been enough flight hours to accurately depict the specific safety record for this new aircraft.” (Page 3-29)

“The total population (referring to minority and low-income people) affected by noise levels equal to or greater than 65 dB DNL would increase by 48 percent.” “When a comparison is made, the increases would be considered to affect these populations (minority and low-income people) disproportionately…” (Page BR4-77)

Of all other bases under consideration in the DEIS, only Burlington has an increase in residential land use impacts. (Page ES-70)

Unlike the other criteria, which evaluated whether the airspace and facilities could accommodate the futureF-35A; the encroachment area (under environment) was related to the current aircraft—theF16

Rather than ask if there would be incompatible development in the accident and noise zones around the airport for the F-35A; they asked if there was incompatible development currently for the F-16

Since there are different accident and noise zones for the F-16 and the F-35A, it is not logical to assume that the presence or absence of buildings, or the numbers of buildings for the current F-16 would be the same for the F-35A

Data Problem

Two questions in the ‘Encroachment’ area under the ‘Environmental’ category were answered incorrectly. Those questions were

“Is there incompatible development in clear zones and/or accident potential area?” and

The answer marked for both questions was ‘No’ meaning that there were NO incompatible buildings in either area (accident and noise). Burlington thus received 3 points for each question (6 total)

But, there is incompatible development in both areas (accident and noise), meaning Burlington should not have received 6 points

Burlington Air Guard Station received a total score of 91.021

Without seeing the scores of the other Air Guard Stations, especially Jacksonville Air Guard Station in Florida, McEntire Joint National Guard Base in South Carolina, and Dannelly Field, in Alabama, it cannot be confirmed that another Guard base scored higher than Burlington

South Burlington City Council requested this from the Vermont Congressional Delegates in July 2012

The Delegates said the Air Force would not release it to them

The Air Force did not respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the scoring sheets for other bases

Fallacious Economic Arguments in support of basing the F-35A at the VTANG

Economic Argument: It will benefit the area economically

DEIS states there is NO economic gain under scenario 1

There would be no increase in jobs (DEIS page BR4-72)

DEIS states there would be only “minor” economic effect from the 266 additional military persons (83 full-time and 183 part-time) that would be added under scenario 2 (page BR4-73)

The full-time military will be transferred here from other places around the U.S. (Page BR4-74)

Highly unlikely that any of them would be Vermonters

MG Dubie said that the Air Guard would actually LOSE maintainer jobs if the F-35A were to be based here (public hearing on April 19, 2010)

F-35A will not be maintained at the Burlington Air Guard Station, as the F-16 is. The F-35A will be maintained at a centralized location

Most of the full time VT Air Guard jobs are maintainer jobs

MG Dubie did not specify how many jobs would be lost, but he said the lost jobs would be worth it

Economic Argument: If the F-35A does not come here the Guard Station will close

No public official (military, government, or politician) has EVER said the base will close if the F-35A is not based here (lots of lay-folks have falsely said or implied the base will close)

The F-35 does not affect the Army Guard, which is the majority of the VT Guard (about 4,000 members)

The Air Guard numbers about 1,000 people. Some assume half are part time. NOTE: The VT Guard will not disclose how many Air Guard members are full or part time, and how many are Vermonters. Guard members often come from other states to serve their monthly weekend Guard duty

MG Dubie said in a press conference in July 2012, that if the F-35A does not come here, the base MAY get SMALLER (likely meaning the Air Guard)

Bankrupting our country so huge defense contractors can stay in business is foolhardy

Defense contractor executives are the ones who profit most from weapon systems

Patriotism means supporting our troops and ensuring they and their families are taken care of financially and medically

To pay for weapon systems, such as the F-35, the Department of Defense freezes military salaries, cuts their benefits, slashes family benefits, increases veterans health care costs, and cuts programs for homeless, and disabled, and unemployed veterans